Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-20T22:40:51.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dolomite overgrowths suggest a primary origin of cone-in-cone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2016

JOHN N. HOOKER  and
JOE CARTWRIGHT
JOHN N. HOOKER*
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3AN, UK
JOE CARTWRIGHT
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3AN, UK
*
*Author for correspondence: john.hooker@earth.ox.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A long-debated aspect of cone-in-cone structures is whether the mineral aggregates composing the structure precipitated with their conical form (primary cone-in-cone), or whether the cones formed after precipitation (secondary cone-in-cone). A calcite deposit from the Cretaceous of Jordan bears all the defining characteristics of the structure. Trace dolomite within the sample supports the primary cone-in-cone hypothesis. The host sediment is a biosiliceous mudstone containing abundant rhombohedral dolomite grains. Dolomite rhombohedra are also distributed throughout the calcite of the cone-in-cone. The rhombohedra within the calcite locally have dolomite overgrowths that are aligned with calcite fibres. Evidence that dolomite co-precipitated with calcite, and did not replace calcite, includes (i) preferential downward extension of dolomite overgrowths, in the presumed growth-direction of the cone-in-cone, from the dolomite grains on which they nucleate, and (ii) planar, vertical borders between dolomite crystals and calcite fibres. Because dolomite overgrows host-sediment rhombohedra and forms part of the cones, it follows that the host-sediment was incorporated into the growing cone-in-cone as the calcite precipitated, and not afterward. The host-sediment was not injected into the cone-in-cone along fractures, as the secondary-origin theory suggests. This finding implies that cone-in-cone in general does not form over multiple stages, and thus has greater potential to preserve the chemical signature of its original precipitation.

Keywords

cone-in-conecalcitedolomitediagenesisSEM
Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 155 , Issue 3 , March 2018 , pp. 568 - 585
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ábalos, B. & Elorza, J. 2011. Latest Cretaceous cone-in-cone structures and soft-sediment deformation (Basque-Cantabrian Basin, north Spain): a record of deep-marine paleoseismicity? Geological Society of America Bulletin 123 (3–4), 427–38.Google Scholar
Abed, A. M. & Al-Agha, M. R. 1989. Petrography, geochemistry and origin of the NW Jordan phosphorites. Journal of the Geological Society 146, 499–506.Google Scholar
Abed, A. M. & Amireh, B. S. 1983. Petrography and geochemistry of some Jordanian oil shales from north Jordan. Journal of Petroleum Geology 5 (3), 261–74.Google Scholar
Abu-Jaber, N. S., Kimberley, M. M. & Cavaroc, V. V. 1989. Mesozoic-Paleogene basin development within the eastern Mediterranean borderland. Journal of Petroleum Geology 12 (4), 419–36.Google Scholar
Ali Hussein, M., Alqudah, M., Podlaha, O. G., van den Boorn, S., Kolonic, S. & Mutterlose, J. 2014 a. Ichnofabrics of Eocene oil shales from central Jordan and their use for paleoenvironmental reconstructions. GeoArabia 19 (1), 145–60.Google Scholar
Ali Hussein, M., Alqudah, M., van den Boorn, S., Kolonic, S., Podlaha, O. G. & Mutterlose, J. 2014 b. Eocene oil shales from Jordan – their petrography, carbon and oxygen stable isotopes. GeoArabia 19 (3), 139–62.Google Scholar
Alqudah, M., Ali Hussein, M., Podlaha, O. G., van den Boorn, S., Kolonic, S. & Mutterlose, J. 2014. Calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy of Eocene oil shales from central Jordan. GeoArabia 19 (1), 117–40.Google Scholar
Aso, E., Gisbert, T. J. & Garcés, B. V. 1992. Type septaria-cone in cone nodules in the Stephano-Permian of the Catalan Pyrenees. Carbonates and Evaporites 7 (2), 132–9.Google Scholar
Aydin, A. & DeGraff, J. M. 1988. Evolution of polygonal fracture patterns in lava flows. Science 239 (4839), 471–6.Google Scholar
Bellamy, J. 1977. Subsurface expansion megapolygons in Upper Jurassic dolostone (Kimmeridge, UK). Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 47, 973–8.Google Scholar
Bender, F. 1974. Geology of Jordan. Berlin: Gebrüder Borntraeger, 196 pp.Google Scholar
Beydoun, Z. R., Futyan, A. R. I. & Jawzi, A. H. 1994. Jordan revisited: hydrocarbon habitats and potential. Journal of Petroleum Geology 17 (2), 177–94.Google Scholar
Bons, P. D., Elburg, M. A. & Gomez-Rivas, E. 2012. A review of the formation of tectonic veins and their microstructures. Journal of Structural Geology 43, 33–62.Google Scholar
Cartwright, J. 2011. Diagenetically induced shear failure of fine-grained sediments and development of polygonal fault systems. Marine and Petroleum Geology 28, 1593–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobbold, P. R. & Rodrigues, N. 2007. Seepage forces, important factors in the formation of horizontal hydraulic fractures and bedding-parallel fibrous veins (‘beef’ and ‘cone-in-cone’). Geofluids 7, 313–22.Google Scholar
Cobbold, P. R., Zanella, A., Rodrigues, N. & Løseth, H. 2013. Bedding parallel fibrous veins (beef and cone-in-cone): worldwide occurrence and possible significance in terms of fluid overpressure, hydrocarbon generation and mineralization. Marine and Petroleum Geology 43, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, G. A. J. 1893. On some examples of cone-in-cone structure. Mineralogical Magazine 10, 136–41.Google Scholar
De Yoreo, J. J. & Vekilov, P. G. 2003. Principles of crystal nucleation and growth. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry 54, 57–93.Google Scholar
Durrance, E. M. 1965. Cone-in-cone structures: a new investigation. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 76 (1), 83–9.Google Scholar
Eyal, Y. & Reches, Z. 1983. Tectonic analysis of the Dead Sea rift region since the late-Cretaceous based on mesostructures. Tectonics 2 (2), 167–85.Google Scholar
Franks, P. C. 1969. Nature, origin, and significance of cone-in-cone structures in the Kiowa Formation (early Cretaceous), north-central Kansas. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 39 (4), 1438–54.Google Scholar
Gilman, R. A. & Metzger, W. J. 1967. Cone-in-cone concretions from western New York. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 37 (1), 87–95.Google Scholar
Gresley, W. S. 1894. Cone-in-cone: how it occurs in the ‘Devonian’ Series in Pennsylvania, U.S.A., with further details of its structure, varieties, etc. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 50, 731–9.Google Scholar
Hendry, J. P. 2002. Geochemical trends and paleohydrological significance of shallow burial calcite and ankerite cements in Middle Jurassic strata on the East Midlands Shelf (onshore UK). Sedimentary Geology 151, 149–76.Google Scholar
Hilgers, C. & Urai, J. L. 2005. On the arrangement of solid inclusions in fibrous veins and the role of the crack-seal mechanism. Journal of Structural Geology 27, 481–94.Google Scholar
Hillier, R. D. & Cosgrove, J. W. 2002. Core and seismic observations of overpressure-related deformation within Eocene sediments of the Outer Moray Firth, UKCS. Petroleum Geoscience 8, 141–9.Google Scholar
Hornig, T., Sokolov, I. M. & Blumen, A. 1996. Patterns and scaling in surface fragmentation processes. Physical Review E 54 (4), 4293–8.Google Scholar
Israelson, C., Halliday, A. N. & Buchardt, B. 1996. U–Pb dating of calcite concretions from Cambrian black shales and the Phanerozoic time scale. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 141, 153–9.Google Scholar
Kindle, E. M. 1917. Factors affecting the development of mud-cracks. Journal of Geology 25 (2), 135–44.Google Scholar
Kolokol'tsev, V. G. 2002. The cone-in-cone structure and its origin. Lithology and Mineral Resources 37 (6), 523–35.Google Scholar
Kowal-Linka, M. 2010. Origin of cone-in-cone calcite veins during calcitization of dolomites and their subsequent diagenesis: a case study from the Gogolin Formation (Middle Triassic) SW Poland. Sedimentary Geology 224, 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Breton, E., Cobbold, P. R. & Zanella, A. 2013. Cenozoic reactivation of the Great Glen Fault, Scotland: additional evidence and possible causes. Journal of the Geological Society, London 170, 403–15.Google Scholar
Lüning, S. & Kuss, J. 2014. Petroleum geology of Jordan. In Petroleum Systems of the Tethyan Region (eds Marlow, L., Kendall, C. & Yose, L.), pp. 217–39. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir no. 106.Google Scholar
Maher, H. D., Ogata, K. Jr & Braathen, A. 2016. Cone-in-cone and beef mineralization associated with the Triassic growth basin faulting and shallow shale diagenesis, Edgeøya, Svalbard. Geological Magazine, available on CJO2016. doi: 10.1017/S0016756815000886.Google Scholar
Marshall, J. D. 1982. Isotopic composition of displacive fibrous calcite veins: reversals in pore-water composition trends during burial diagenesis. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 52 (2), 615–30.Google Scholar
McBride, E. F., Picard, M. D. & Milliken, K. L. 2003. Calcite-cemented concretions in Cretaceous sandstone, Wyoming and Utah, U.S.A. Journal of Sedimentary Research 73 (3), 462–83.Google Scholar
Merino, E. & Canals, A. 2011. Self-accelerating dolomite-for-calcite replacement: self-organized dynamics of burial dolomitization and associated mineralization. American Journal of Science 311, 573–607.Google Scholar
Moss, S. & Tucker, M. E. 1995. Diagenesis of Barremian-Aptian platform carbonates (the Urgonian Limestone Formation of SE France): near-surface and shallow-burial diagenesis. Sedimentology 42, 853–74.Google Scholar
Olson, J. E. & Pollard, D. D. 1991. The initiation and growth of en échelon veins. Journal of Structural Geology 13, 595–608.Google Scholar
Parnell, J., Blamey, N. J. F., Costanzo, A., Feely, M. & Boyce, A. J. 2013. Preservation of Mesoproterozoic age deep burial fluid signatures, NW Scotland. Marine and Petroleum Geology 55, 275–81.Google Scholar
Powell, J. H. & Moh'd, B. K. 2011. Evolution of Cretaceous to Eocene alluvial and carbonate platform sequences in central and south Jordan. GeoArabia 16 (4), 29–82.Google Scholar
Pufahl, P. K., Grimm, K. A., Abed, A. M. & Sadaqah, R. M. Y. 2003. Upper Cretaceous (Campanian) phosphorites in Jordan: implications for the formation of a south Tethyan phosphorite giant. Sedimentary Geology 161, 175–205.Google Scholar
Richardson, W. A. 1923. Part III: Petrology. In (Lang, W. D., Spath, L. F. & Richardson, W. A.), Shales-with-‘Beef’, a sequence in the Lower Lias of the Dorset Coast. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 79, 47–99.Google Scholar
Sellés-Martínez, J. 1994. New insights in the origin of cone-in-cone structures. Carbonates and Evaporites 9 (2), 172–86.Google Scholar
Sellés-Martínez, J. 1996. Concretion morphology, classification and genesis. Earth Science Reviews 41, 177–210.Google Scholar
Shearman, D. J., Mossop, G., Dunsmore, H. & Martin, M. 1972. Origin of gypsum veins by hydraulic fracture. Transactions of the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 181, B149–55.Google Scholar
Tarr, W. A. 1922. Cone-in-cone. American Journal of Science Series 5, 4, 199–213.Google Scholar
Tarr, W. A. 1932. Cone-in-cone. In Treatise on Sedimentation, 2nd edn (ed. Twinhofel, W. H.), pp. 716–33. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Co.Google Scholar
Tucker, M. E. & Wright, P. W. 1990. Carbonate Sedimentology. Oxford: Blackwell, 482 pp.Google Scholar
Woodland, B. G. 1964. The nature and origin of cone-in-cone structure. Fieldiana: Geology 13, 187–305.Google Scholar